According to early reports, we learned that EgyptAir’s MS804 Airbus A320 carrying 66 people, left from Paris Charles de Gaulle International Airport at 11.09pm (21.09 GMT) local time on Wednesday night bound for Cairo International Airport 01:15 GMT (03:15 Cairo time).

Around 2.45am Egypt local time (00.45 GMT) Greek air traffic controllers reported MS804, was headed southeast before making an abrupt turn to the northwest – only to vanish from radar while traveling at 37,000 feet, inside of Egyptian airspace.

With no distress call given, officials are still confounded over the direct cause of the air disaster – one week later.

Intially, Greek Defense Minister Panos Kammenos stated that MS804 abruptly ‘swerved’ at a 90 degree angle and then 360 degrees, before dramatically losing altitude – but according to Egyptian investigators this week, this claim is questionable until the black box is located:

“The head of Egypt’s National Air Navigation Services Company is challenging that account. Administrative board chairman Mohi El-Din Azmi told Egyptian state-run media Al-Ahram on Sunday that the plane did not swerve or lose altitude before it disappeared off the radar.”

After the disappearance of MH370, there was an onslaught of reportage offering insight into the unprecedented hull loss of the Boeing 777.

Back in 2014, 21WIRE discovered that the ACARS system primarily developed to automatically detect and report changes to the four major flight phases, known as OOOI, (Out of the gate, Off the ground, On the ground and Into the gate) are determined by algorithms tapped into aircraft sensors. ACARS transmissions are then beamed to the ground radar through digital messages. Each new flight phase is recorded and sent to the ground via this system, the flight origin, the amount of fuel, as well as – the flight’s destination.

CNN reported that “French aviation officials revealed that an automated system aboard the plane sent messages about smoke in the front of the aircraft.” This data was acquired from the ACARS system – which would mean authorities would also have access to the location of the aircraft.

‘MS804 MYSTERY’ – More apparent wreckage from the EgyptAir disaster – once again, no fire damage looks to be present. Larger sections of the plane have yet to be found. (Photo thestar.com)

“The EgyptAir jet that disappeared last week did not show technical problems before taking off from Paris, sources within the Egyptian investigation committee said late on Tuesday.

The sources said the plane did not make contact with Egyptian air traffic control, but Egyptian air traffic controllers were able to see it on radar on a border area between Egyptian and Greek airspace known as KUMBI, 260 nautical miles from Cairo.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the sources said the plane disappeared without swerving off radar screens after less than a minute of it entering Egyptian airspace. Air traffic controllers from Greece and Egypt have given differing accounts of the plane’s final moments.

With so many conflicting reports, there is a reasoned and logical explanation for what might have happened to MS804…

“The Boeing 777 along with other Boeing models [some suggest Airbus models since 1989] can in fact be flown remotely through the use of independent embedded software and satellite communication. Once this advanced system is engaged, it can disallow any pilot or potential hijacker from controlling a plane, as the rooted setup uses digital signals that communicate with air traffic control, satellite links, as well as other government entities for the remainder of a flight’s journey.”

“This technology is known as the Boeing Honeywell ‘Uninterruptible’ Autopilot System.”

In fact, since 1954, “Boeing filed for a patent called “Composite Aircraft” that related to the ‘method and means’ to control an airliner.”

“In 1984 and 1986, Honeywell had two very important patents pertaining to the modernization of Flight Management System technology, both helping with the integration of automated flight digital data processing and in 1995, Boeing filed a patent for an “alternate destination planner,” to be used in conjunction with other Honeywell patents.”

‘DRONE JET’ – NASA’s N833NA, was a remotely-piloted Boeing 720 airliner, here it makes a practice approach at Rogers Dry Lake, California on December 1st, 1984. The crash test was widely regarded as a complete failure in terms of the flame-reducing fuel additive – but the real prize was flying a huge airliner remotely. (Photo thisdayinaviation.com)

After the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, President George Bush called for the creation of remote control systems to be placed within commercial airliners in the event of an emergency. This new technology would grant air traffic controllers along with other government agencies control over an aircraft – for its final intended destination.

Remote ‘fly-by-wire’ technology has been possible with large-scale airliners (Boeing 720’s) since at least 1984. Based on history, evidence suggests Flight Management Systems within Boeing models were capable of remote flight well before Bush’s politicized decree following 9/11.

In August of 2003, Wired magazine linked to a Wall Street Journal report entitled, “Flying Safety Put on Auto-Pilot,” which discussed auto-pilot systems already in place:

“Airbus and Honeywell are close to perfecting technology that takes control of airplanes to prevent them from crashing into obstacles, The Wall Street Journal reports. When audible warnings from crash-avoidance systems are ignored, the system overrides actions by the pilot and takes evasive maneuvers, the newspaper said.”

“The system would link crash-warning devices, already common on airliners, with cockpit computers that could automate flying to prevent collisions, executives from Honeywell (HON) said.”

We should also remember that in 2006, Boeing was officially awarded a patent for their ‘uninterruptible’ autopilot system, although there is some speculation a version may have been in use before 9/11. The new system was featured in an article entitled “Boeing wins patent on uninterruptible autopilot system,” republished by Homeland Security News Wire on December 4th, 2006, from John Croft’s Flight Global report, (since taken down from their website) we see clear evidence of those who have direct access to control large commercial airliners at anytime during a flight’s journey, such as the US’s Central Intelligence Agency:

“A new Raytheon contract to develop software that uses type of craft, location, and fuel capacity to determine the safest route for a hijacked or otherwise compromised aircraft. This is a great idea, one that must have Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing excited — not out of envy but because it improves the value of its recently awarded patent for a system that, once activated, takes control of the airplane away from the pilots and flies it to a predetermined landing position.”

“Boeing’s is, of course, not the first autopilot technology in existence, but this one has been designed with counterterrorism first and foremost in mind. Not only is it “uninterruptible” — so that even a tortured pilot cannot turn it off — but it can be activated remotely via radio or satellite by government agencies. The system might even include sensors on the cockpit door that activate the autopilot of a certain amount of force is used against it.”

When looking back on thesuspicious crash of Germanwings flight 9525, many speculated what might have occurred on the Dusseldorf bound flight. After the initial flood of ‘official’ propagandized mainstream media reports, it was difficult to sift through fact and fiction, as media outlets largely choose not to discuss the obvious elephant in the room – the existence of advanced avionics that could potentially taking over a commercial flight at anytime during it’s journey.

So what are we to make of the latest EgyptAir disaster involving MS804?

First, we must examine some of the evidence left in plain sight by the media…

In late March, EgyptAir flight MS181 was subjected to a hoax hijack attempt by a passenger claiming to be wearing an “explosive belt.” The BBC reported the following:

“Airline officials later said they had been told by Cypriot authorities that the belt was fake.

The hijacker’s motives remain unclear but the Cypriot president said the incident was not terrorism-related.”

After a 6 hour ordeal, investigators determined the threat was not real on MS 181, when the Egyptian man facing terror charges, marked by Cypriot officials as Seif Eldin Mustafa, had a ‘hoax’ explosive device attached to him.

Interestingly, Mustafa had a lengthy criminal record and had just been released from prison in March of 2015.

How exactly would someone with the device described, even make it on an aircraft?

Furthermore, why were passengers seen posing in pictures with him?

The BBC had what amounted to a ready-made answer to placate the public, drawing the focus back to airport security:

“It is only some small comfort that the man who hijacked Egyptair flight MS181 was bluffing. The bulging white “suicide belt” with wires sticking out turned out to be a fake.

It at least means that this time Egypt cannot be accused of letting someone smuggle explosives through airport security and on to an airliner as they did in October at Sharm El Sheikh airport, destroying a Russian passenger jet in mid-air.

But it still triggers a number of worrying questions about aviation security.

How was it that a passenger, described by the Cypriot authorities as “mentally unstable” was able to carry enough materials through Alexandria airport to resemble a bomb?

And what is to stop any future airline passenger, similarly unarmed, from pretending that he or she has a real device strapped to them?

For Egypt’s battered tourism industry, that has yet to recover from the October airline bombing, this hijack is a further blow it can ill afford.”

Although the alleged explosive device was fake according to authorities, Mustafa faced charges of “hijacking, illegal possession of explosives, kidnapping and threats to commit violence,” for an act that was apparently committed for personal reasons to ‘reunite’ with his estranged ex-wife and family.

We have to wonder, was MS181 a warning of things to come for EgyptAir?

We should review some of what we learned in the aftermath of MH 370. Here is a report I compiled in March of 2014, that describes a call for sweeping changes concerning security:

“As authorities have mulled over the flights pathway, they’ve enlisted the help of geospatial giant DigitalGlobe, once known as Earth Watch, a satellite imaging corporation that also doubles as a defense contractor. DigitalGlobe was tasked to locate the missing Boeing 777 via their crowdsourcing site tomnod.com. We’re told their efforts have turned up empty, as amateur sleuths combed over millions of satellite images.

Perhaps the true role for this ‘public search’ was to generate excitement for the security and defense surveillance industry – never letting a crisis go to waste. You can already hear the calls for more biometrics, security and surveillance in the wake of MH370, all to be rolled out in an airport near you.”

One wonders if the events invloving MS181 in March, were crafted by those in the intelligence community as a precursor for MS804. In many ways, a staged incident becomes a dry run, a drill to gain insight and planning of a future event – all the while gauging the public’s reaction.

In a strange coincidence, MS804 had been the target of so-called vandals who scribbled a warning, “We will bring this plane down,” on bottom of the doomed airliner in July of 2013, after Mohamed Morsi exited office in Egypt.

What are the odds of that happening to MS804?

This kind of media ‘sleight of hand’ was recently explored by 21WIRE contributor Vanessa Beeley,in an article entitled “Gaslighting: State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism,” in which she described a deliberate psychological warfare technique employed to obfuscate the general public over information – perhaps, a precursor to the CIA’s media control program called Project Mockingbird:

“Gaslighting as an abuser’s modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate. This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.”

On October 6th, weeks before the ‘vanishing’ and apparent act of terror on October 31st, involving Metrojet Flight 9268, a Russian Airbus A321 carrying some 224 passengers, Egypt expressed support over Russia’s military intervention in Syria – something which may have put Egypt in the crosshairs of the West. The following report was from Al Arabiya News:

“Egypt stands unwavering in its support of Russia’s military intervention in Syria, a stance that reflects the strength of relations between the two countries, but also raises questions on Cairo’s policy towards the Syrian crisis.

On Wednesday, Moscow began a campaign of air strikes over Syria, in what some commentators call its biggest military operation in decades. A few days later, Egypt voiced support for the Russian intervention, saying it will halt the spread of terrorism in the war-torn country.

Egypt’s support of the Russian airstrikes are not a change of tune, observers say. While Cairo has avoided showing direct support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Egypt has always claimed that both itself and Syria are at war against an Islamist insurgency.”

It turns out, on the same day as the EgyptAir MS804 disaster, according to The Wall Street Journal, “Moscow honored an agreement to loan Egypt $25 billion to build its first nuclear power plant, even though Moscow maintains a ban on flights to Egypt since the October airliner bombing.”

Given that those in Washington, along with their GCC allies and Israel seem obsessed over who holds nuclear power worldwide – the public should consider the extremely tough question of who or whom might have an axe to grind with Egypt over their political alliances and future energy ambitions.

On another note, the WSJ report also outlined the West’s preferable trajectory for Egypt’s policy interests:

“An incident like this on the heels of another airline disaster is always going to speed up any cooperation on security even if the cause is not yet clear,” the Western diplomat said.

Regardless of what actually caused the EgyptAir flight from Paris to Cairo to crash, Michael Hanna, an Egypt expert at the Century Foundation, said recent traffic from Washington suggests the U.S. will seek to increase support for the Sisi regime despite deep concerns about its human-rights record.

The goal is to avoid having Egypt—long a U.S. ally under longtime authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak—follow the downward spiral of Iraq, Syria and neighboring Libya, where terrorists have exploited security vacuums in recent years.

“Egypt is too big to fail in the eyes of the U.S. and Europe,” Mr. Hanna said.

Another intriguing aspect to this recent EgyptAir mystery, is the fact that NATO member nations conducted a rather large Mediterranean Sea drill from May 17th-May-27. The International Phoenix exercise was just two days in to military drills when MS804 went missing from radar.

“This year, Algeria, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States, representatives from the NATO Shipping Center, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the EU border management agency Frontex are taking part in the drills.

The naval part of the exercises will test the sides’ abilities to respond to challenges of migration, trafficking and the movement of weapons. They will also conduct search and rescue operations.”

The following is from Willyloman, who provides a more in-depth description of the Phoenix naval drill reportedly issued by the US Navy before it was abruptly taken down from their site:

“Participants of Phoenix Express have opportunities to enhance expertise in a number of areas: boarding techniques, search-and-rescue operations, medical casualty response, MOC to MOC communication, and maritime domain awareness tools…

A Combined Maritime Operation Center (CMOC), led and comprised of North African navy officers, will form at NMIOTC to manage at-sea operations.”

Did the AFRICOM-directed drill, described above, have anything to do with this latest EgyptAir tragedy?

While it is still unclear what exactly transpired during MS804’s final leg of it’s intended voyage, it seems unlikely that a large-scale military presence in the Mediterranean Sea, wouldn’t have known the exact location of the missing plane – not to mention the plane’s own tracking systems already in place.

A recent Time report quoted Clint Watts,a former executive officer at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center:

“The lack of a claim may well indicate a lack of responsibility. “Why bring down a plane if you’re not going to take credit for it?” asked Clint Watts, formerly executive officer at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center. Watts finds “somewhat reassuring” not only the silence from jihadi groups, but also the physical facts of the event. Flight 804 departed for Cairo from an extremely security-conscious airport in Paris.”

Even top brass counter-terror experts are finding the latest theories swirling around MS804 hard to swallow.

There are serious questions surrounding EgyptAir Flight MS804. The world is still waiting for some real answers.